<html>
<body>
<h2><b>Examining the Palestinian Left at SOAS : Episode I
</b></h2><font size=2>By
<a href="http://palestinethinktank.com/author/mary-rizzo/">Mary Rizzo</a>
• Jun 30th, 2010 at 12:46 <br>
<a href="http://palestinethinktank.com/2010/06/30/examining-the-palestinian-left-at-soas-episode-i-by-cafe-thawra-intro-by-mary-rizzo/" eudora="autourl">
http://palestinethinktank.com/2010/06/30/examining-the-palestinian-left-at-soas-episode-i-by-cafe-thawra-intro-by-mary-rizzo/<br>
<br>
</a></font><font size=3>WRITTEN BY CAFE' THAWRA, Intro by Mary
Rizzo<br><br>
I am always astounded that activists, especially those in the West, have
got little to no grip on the history of Palestinian political movements.
Yes, they know one or two things about the PLO (most of it very vague),
al Fatah, Hamas, Arafat, those who are slightly more aware of
things even have an opinion about the Oslo Accords and the Rejection
Front. Yet, there is a gaping hole in the awareness of politics in
Palestine and of the Palestinians who live in Israel, that I believe
leads activists to be precisely where the Hasbara wants them to be,
entrenched in a reductive state of ignorance and generalisation. I am
always astounded that STILL today, there is the misconception about
secularism in Palestinian politics and the hasbara lie that the Left
(even the Palestinian one) is atheist, just because some of the earliest
proponents were Marxists. This of course works to create a divide between
Palestinians, which is the last thing they need, seeing as how the only
real threat to Israel and Zionism is the return to the Arab body of the
Palestinian people. Rhetoric does not bother Israel, but a mass movement
that is united like the Intifada does. I do understand that many do not
engage in dialogue with people in these groups, so perhaps this ignorance
may be forgiven, but we can't persist in it. Indeed, to continue to
insist that there are the strictest of political divisions is something
that makes sense in the West but is completely irrelevant in Palestine
and is actually an effective Hasbara tool to maintain division, which
only serves the zionists and any others who do not put "Palestine
First". As Rabah Mohanna of the PFLP in Gaza stated:
<a href="http://www.antiimperialista.org/ar/node/5176">
http://www.antiimperialista.org/ar/node/5176</a><br><br>
"I don't think that we are going to civil war. There might be the
continuation of clashes between some factions of Fatah and Hamas. I don't
see we have the conditions for civil war. The mentality and the
constitution of the Palestinian society will make it difficult for the
clashes to expand into a real civil war. The constitution of the
Palestinian society holds a kind of control over this situation. You
might imagine this as if for instance in my house, I am with Fatah, my
wife is with Hamas, my son with PFLP. People have strong relations with
each other and they are all interconnected."<br><br>
That is, there is a tolerance, understanding and reciprocity that is
deeply rooted in Palestinians so that the divisions that in Israel or the
West that we take for granted have complete and total irrelevance in the
family/society that is Palestinian. Indeed, to illustrate this concept
that makes perfect sense to many Arab nationalists, Palestinian patriots
and those who follow these lines of thought, but is alien to those who
try to stick their own reductive reading of politics onto everything they
get near, I present a conversation on a very popular discussion forum in
English that is mostly used by Palestinians or non-Palestinians
sympathetic with the PFLP and the DFLP (Al Jabah). The issue of
secularism came up when discussing the music used in some of the videos
depicting the armed resistance operations. Several of the comments were
very interesting, and I will reprint a few here: <br><br>
</font>
<dl>
<dd>Question:<br>
<dd>"i am talking about why be communist if you have Islam.<br>
<dd>and i am talking about why be secular if Aqsa is for
Islam?"<br><br>
</dl>Reply:<br><br>
<dl>
<dd>"I think we have to remember that not everybody in PFLP are
Muslims but there are many Christian members too. It seems to me that
they basically protect their homeland and their freedom to live in their
homes, without occupation of zionists. Their goal is same than other
Palestinians, even if they don't do it for the name of
Islam."<br><br>
</dl>other replies:<br><br>
<dl>
<dd>"maybe you should know more about Palestine, first. history,
politics…etc.<br>
<dd>and i wouldn’t call PFLP communist, i see it says that on
wikipedia.<br>
<dd>and the word secular is being misinterpreted. it doesn’t mean
atheist.<br>
<dd>it basically means religious sectarianism is not part of the
political system, secular does not mean atheist.<br>
<dd>even the most religious person can be a communist, socialist.<br>
<dd>or even a fascist, zionist or whatever…."<br><br>
<dd>"al-Jabha is not Communist, we adhere to a Marxist style
politics, there's a small difference. Also, I didn't appreciate the one
who said Falisteen is for Islam only, there are many Christians who have
given their lives and blood for our independence movement, while many
Muslims (Saudi Arabia, Egypt, Gulf states) sit on their arses and watch
as our people die. I am a Muslim, but many of my comrades are Christians,
and we dream for the same goal-to have a homeland for our people, and to
return to this land without restriction.<br><br>
<dd>By the way, I have Islam but I'm secular in my politics. Why? Because
not everyone has Islam, nor desires to have it. It's not the politicians'
job to deal with religions. That's the clerics'."<br><br>
<dd>In order to truly honor God and his judgements, we must respect those
around us who may not share our faith. Not only will it ensure a safe and
happy future for Palestine but it will be what separates us from the
Zionists. Never forget the goal is not just national liberation, but the
defeat of Zionism and hatred in the region. Whatever gets in the way of
that should be set aside. Palestine first!<br><br>
</dl>So, it is in the spirit of indicating a current "state of
affairs" of the Palestinian left, so that we can cast off a
dangerous ignorance, that I'm presenting the very fine report made on the
recent conference in London. Hope it helps to contribute to understanding
the true essence and reality of Palestinian politics, where the heroes
also have the names of the greatest patriots of all time, George Habash,
Laila Khaled, Azmi Bishara, Ahmed Sa'adat and others whose love of their
land and people means exile, imprisonment and seeing their ideas and
ideals thwarted and distorted by "friends" whose own ignorance
could be lethal for the cause of National Liberation. Mary
Rizzo<br><br>
</i>from Café Thawra:<br>
I was very excited a few weeks ago to come back to my beloved university
SOAS and attend the conference about the Palestinian left organised
there. I was also able to see my ex classmates, going back to our old
debates regarding our beloved region: the Middle East. The subject of the
conference was very special to me, as I feel on many issues and positions
very close to the Palestinian left. Georges Habash, a central figure
within the Palestinian left, is actually a personality that I respect and
look up to very much, it is I think our Che Guevera of the Middle East,
directly involved with armed and political struggle, as well as an
incredible and inspiring thinker, never forgetting the interest of the
masses. The Revolution was always in his mind. <br><br>
Right, after this rather politics/sentimental episode, let us come back
to our conference, where many personalities gathered to give the public
the best overview of a Palestinian left currently in perdition.<br><br>
Many speakers mentioned the terrible situation in Palestine and the
inability of the left to fill the vacuum or present an alternative to
both Fatah and Hamas. Azmi Bishara, who intervened through video
conference, criticized the neutral position of the left as a mark of its
incompetence in relation to the conflict between Hamas and Fatah. He
added that the struggle is actually not between an Islamic movement on
one side and a secular group on the other side, as reported many times by
the Western press, but rather an opposition between collaboration and
resistance. The left should have claimed its clear support to resistance
and denounce the security cooperation between the PLO and Israel. Azmi
Bishara ended his presentation by declaring that the unity of the PLO
cannot be used as an alibi, and this inability to take position is on the
opposite an indicator of the left’s crisis in Palestine. <br><br>
This weakness brought us back to the history of leftist Palestinian
political parties and what made them strong in the past. Leila Khaled,
from the Palestinian Front for the Liberation of Palestine (PFLP), and
member of the PNC, who wasn’t by the way allowed to come because British
authorities refused to grant her a visa, explained the evolution of her
party the Popular Front for the Liberation of Palestine created in 1967.
They recruited most of their members in the refugee camps in the
neighboring countries. The 1st document of the organization determining
the political strategy of the party and the paths to Revolution was
published in 1969. It defined notably very clearly who the enemies
were:<br><br>
- USA imperialism<br>
- Zionism racist ideology and the Israeli State<br>
- Arab reactionary regimes<br><br>
It also showed the friends of the Revolution, in order to demonstrate to
their members that they were not alone in the struggle:<br><br>
- Arab liberation movements<br>
- Socialists and workers<br>
- Progressive States<br><br>
The Party had a very clear Marxist ideology: the workers, the petit
bourgeois and the proletariat were the classes interested in the
Revolution, whereas the bourgeois class was not. The 1st objective of the
Revolution was the creation of a Palestinian State, with Jerusalem as its
capital and the return of the refugees, which was and is still its most
important request. The mobilization of the masses was made through
numerous ways:<br><br>
- contact with the masses, forward information and organize seminars<br>
- contact with the workers, the syndicates and the PLO<br>
- information activities, newspaper, tracks<br>
-Political education, sending members to socialist countries, learn
Marxism and its theories, and then members would come back and diffuse
the message to the masses. They established schools in refugee camps in
Lebanon and Jordan. They sent students abroad to pursue their studies and
offered them scholarships.<br><br>
- Education of Palestinian culture<br>
- Implement masses organizations for women, youngsters, workers,
etc…<br><br>
The left at that time was very successful in mobilizing different sectors
of the society including women, youth, workers, etc…<br><br>
After 1982, the Palestinian national movement declined, as well as the
armed struggle, the departure of Lebanon was indeed a heavy blow to the
movement. The mobilization nevertheless continued and the 1st Intifada
gave the Palestinians a lot of hope. The position of the left was
revitalized and the focus of the struggle was transferred from the
outside to the inside of Palestine.<br><br>
M. Jaradat, a Campaign Unit Coordinator for Badil and an activist during
the 1st Intifada, supports this version and adds that the Left in the 80s
was part of the community, not an arrogant and elitist movement, their
members were mostly peasants. Popular movements influenced by the left
had strong civic networks, they were autonomic and self financed
depending on local resources, and composed mostly of youth, students and
workers. Women associations were numerous and played an important role in
girls’ education. Popular education was enshrined by the left in several
regions. Education was actually the most important capital for the
Palestinians, as M. Jaradat reminded.<br><br>
The 1990s were the beginning of the downfall of the Left on different
levels. On the International level, they lost their main support and
model: the USSR. The left was not prepared to the demise of the socialist
block. On the regional level, Arab regimes ceased to support the PLO and
the left. On a national level, the conclusion of the Oslo agreements
marginalized the role and the importance of the PLO and therefore
weakening the left. This latter opposed the Oslo agreements because it
achieved no objectives of the Palestinian Resistance such as the right of
return or the establishment of a sovereign State. Many leftist seniors
and militants were actually arrested because of their opposition to the
Oslo agreements by the new Palestinian security services. The newly
created Palestinian Authority has actually gathered since then the power
and the financial resources given by the International Community. The
left was in its majority not included in the PA, only few officers, who
supported the creation of a Palestinian State even on a small part of the
territory, joined it.<br><br>
On societal issues, the left also stepped back, Aitemad Mouhana from
Swansea University and ex PFLP member, reports how in the beginning of
1988, some young boys started to throw stones on the young girls unveiled
in Gaza. Leftist parties as PFLP did not try anything to solve this
situation; on the opposite, they claimed it was not their problem and
that in a traditional society such things are normal. PFLP cadres knew
that Hamas was behind this trend, but for the sake of the Palestinian
unity they did not intervene. Certain FPLP cadres even used this new
trend or tradition to control women in their close entourage. Aitemad
Mouhana denounced this state of affairs claiming that political
coalitions should not sacrifice women or personal freedoms, and that,
quite on the opposite, national liberation is linked by all means to the
liberation of women and other personal issues. In her opinion, national
liberation should erase all forms of social and traditional inequality.
This showed the contradictory practices of the PFLP and allowed the
historical foundation of Hamas expansion. Hamas bargained on the
political scene but continued to spread their religious program. In 1995,
the majority of women were veiled in Gaza, this islamisation of the
society by Hamas was consolidated by a pragmatic strategy. As Gramsci’s
theory stated it, Hamas has advocated as a particular class that provides
the dominant culture: the Islamic culture. <br><br>
The leftist political parties also lacked understanding of the situation,
the transformation and the realities of Palestinian and Arab societies,
as pointed out by Jamil Hilal, an Independent Researcher in Ramallah and
Gilbert Achkar, a Lebanese teacher at SOAS and leftist militant. Many
members of leftist organizations were indeed sent in socialist countries,
adopting Marxism as a dogma while not understanding the dynamics of their
society. They should have started with their own country reality, as
remarked by Hilal and Achkar; there was a clear absence of the socio
political conception of the conflict. The class structure, as Jamil Hilal
noticed, was different for a Palestinian in Gaza, the West Bank, in the
Gulf countries and in refugee camps in Lebanon or Jordan. <br><br>
These elements weakened considerably the left in different manners as
explained by few participants; the main ones were the following:<br><br>
- Lack of recruitment mechanisms<br>
- Lack of financial resources, which were only available through the PLO
and Western donations through NGOs. This complicated their opposition to
the Oslo agreement; the leftist parties therefore became a kind of loyal
opposition towards the PLO or adopted a more liberal stand towards
western countries to receive funds. They were many withdrawals of
qualified cadres from leftist parties who joined NGOs. Leyla Khaled
besides talked about the emergence of NGOs in this period and the way
they tried to become an alternative to the leftist political parties,
particularly after the Oslo agreement.<br>
- The leadership in Damascus claims their will to become the 1st
political party on the Palestinian scene, but they failed on the
diplomatic scene to achieve this objective and they did not try to unite
a common leftist front. <br><br>
These elements led to a sharp drop in popularity for leftist parties
which were around 17% in 1993 to 5 % today. <br><br>
Gilbert Achkar also criticized from a Marxist perspective the historic
strategic deficiencies of the left of the PLO: <br><br>
- The Palestinian left was characterized by a Palestinian
centralism after 1967, independent from other Arab movements. Their key
principle was actually: non intervention in Arab regimes affairs. This
Palestinian centralism was not valid in the Palestinian case because of
the conflict’s nature and because the Palestinians are being divided in
different countries. This strategy was and is non sustainable, the
advantages were therefore for Israel in this configuration. Jamal
Zahalka, Chair of the National Democratic Assembly/ Tajamu and Member of
the Knesset, also stressed out the need to connect with other Arab
movements to lead a successful struggle against Israel. Dr Achkar
affirmed the need for the Palestinian left to create links with other
leftist parties in the Arab world.<br><br>
- After 1967, financial resources were needed to support the
bureaucratization of the party, and this led in seeking rapprochement
with Arab dictatorial regimes such as Syria, Iraq and Libya. This was in
opposition with the revolutionary discourse of the party. The FPLP had
besides known a faster increase in numbers when it was active as an
underground movement and not linked to certain of these regimes.<br><br>
- FPLP always criticized the social class and the infrastructure of the
PLO, but never left the organization. The PLO structure was indeed not
democratic and was under Fatah’s control. The demand to change the PLO’s
structure was abandoned later by the FPLP which perpetually recon
ciliated with the Fatah and Arafat after important political
disagreements. The main key principle of the left has always been
Palestinian Unity and this at any means. This has unfortunately meant a
lack of critical attitude against the PLO and the left failed to present
itself as an alternative to it. This was one of its main
problems.<br><br>
- Last but not least, armed struggle should not be the only perspective;
a global political program should be put on the table by the left.
<br><br>
Few speakers also explained Hamas success, which on the opposite of the
left clearly presented itself as an alternative to the PLO. Hamas always
refused to enter the PLO in his current infrastructure, without any
reforms which would lead to a democratization of the organization. In
addition to this, Hamas had a political independent stand against the
corrupt Palestinian Authority and had enormous financial resources. These
elements explain partially Hamas arrival to power. However Hamas
ideological use of the armed struggle was criticized and characterized as
very elitist: a small group of armed men struggling and resisting against
Israel, while the rest should only support them and stay aside. During
the 1st Intifada in 1988, which was the peak of the Palestinian struggle,
there was a huge social mobilization and no heavy arms were used, every
Palestinian participated in the revolt and not a small armed
minority.<br><br>
In conclusion, Jamal Juma, member of popular committee in Palestine and
expressing himself through video, said that the left in Palestine is
currently unfortunately not very influential and respected. The
foundation of a gathering of leftists and progressive associations is
necessary and this movement should have a one secular state solution
objective. This remark was echoed by different speakers such as Jamal
Zahalka and M. Jaradat.<br>
Stay tuned for more discussion around this SOAS Event!<br><br>
<a href="http://cafethawra.blogspot.com/2010/03/examining-palestinian-left-at-soas.html">
http://cafethawra.blogspot.com/2010/03/examining-palestinian-left-at-soas.html</a>
<br><br>
<br><br>
<x-sigsep><p></x-sigsep>
<font size=3 color="#FF0000">Freedom Archives<br>
522 Valencia Street<br>
San Francisco, CA 94110<br><br>
</font><font size=3 color="#008000">415 863-9977<br><br>
</font><font size=3 color="#0000FF">
<a href="http://www.freedomarchives.org/" eudora="autourl">
www.Freedomarchives.org</a></font><font size=3> </font></body>
</html>